Tougher opponents throughout there career. Tyson or Marciano

-He won 8 fights on Tuesday Nights in an aborted come back charade 6 years later where he looked a sumo wrestler. Of course that's not your point...now.

-No. You have a case of two inspired lower tier contenders with some bad set backs and only a few decent wins under their belt heading into the match in question. Marciano rose to the occassion, Tyson did not and suffered one of the biggest upset losses in HW Champion history.

-By that measure, he faced Marciano. If you are using Tyson as a measuring stick for Green, its only fair. I think they are comparable in that they are decently regarded peers they met on the way up in pivotal fights, that didn't do much after the fact. Vingo was nearly killed and Green had his issues.

 

So in Douglas, Tuson vasn't facing a superior fighter to the Kockell who fought Marciano? Ok then, enough of this nonsense... I'm out of here!

 

Who is Douglas without the Tyson win? Pretty much in the same spot Kockell was going into the Marciano fight. Why do you think the fight was considered such a huge upset, partly Tyson's invincibility and partly because Douglas to that point was a nobody barely scraping the rankings in a cleaned out division. Douglas was a solid but inspired fighter that Mike didn't take care of business against and lost.

If Maricano partied instead of preparing for Kockell, and he ran out of gas trying to put him down because he expected an easy blow out and got stopped late, would San Fransico Kockell join Tokyo Douglas as a H2H fantasy monster? Should we elevate Tokyo Douglas over proven great fighters and Champions because Tyson's corner treated him with condoms and allowed his eye to close and had no advice to give except "Punch..Mike..punch?"

Well, bye.

 

The fact that Douglas, without the Tyson victory (which he did have), would have been analogous to Kockell is just damning evidence in regards to the era of heavyweight boxing in which Marciano fought. Is there anyone here who thinks Kockell, a light heavy with a glandular problem, would have stood a chance head to head against Douglas or Tucker or Thomas or Tubbs? Does anyone think that Kockell would last 9 rounds against a champion era Tyson?

Unfortunately, there are probably those that do believe the above. I can't wait to hear from them.

 

-Why? It's not like Kockell upset Maricano or anything. Eras? I see no difference. Kockell and Douglas both kind of slid into their rankings by feasting on the left overs of their respected Champion, LaStarza and Berbick. The only thing its a sign of is that Marciano and Tyson cleaned house.

-Of those three. Douglas only fought Tucker and he get stopped. Kockell could match that, no problem. Lets talk about the guys Douglas did beat prior to Tyson, McCall and a post Tyson Berbick. I think Kockell could manage those.

-Last 9 with Tyson? You wouldn't think, but Douglas wasn't supposed to make it out of the first two rounds either. And Kockell wasn't supposed to make it out of the early rounds against Rocky either. Anytihng goes in Tokyo and San Fran.

 

Tell you what, let's move Douglas to the tier with Layne. That's fair isn't it? Both showed they were capable of upsetting a great, Layne did it more often and has a superior overall resume, but sure. Douglas shouldn't be any higher though, if you want to put him with Charles, Walcott, and the like, that isn't happening.

 

Douglas was a fit and ready 230, 6-4 with an 83 inch reach. He showed a great heavyweight jab and a thudding right hand. On his victory ledger were true heavies like Page, Cobb, Berbick and McCall. No losses to middleweights in there. His problems were largely of the neck up variety. But when he showed up, he damn well showed up.

Kockell was 5-11 with a 71 inch reach and was a natural middle/light heavy cursed with a glandular problem that forced him to fight the end of his career in a division for which he was ill suited. He was plenty brave, and more than a bit skillful but was not extraordinarily quick, strong or powerful and was knocked down and out by middleweights and light heavies. His ledger with the big boys is based on victories over the sham that was Harry Matthews (Archie Moore's opinion) and the vastly overrated Roland Lastarza.

In your mind's eye place these two head to head and you have a good illustration of the disparity between the eras for the heavyweight division.

 

You all of a sudden want to adopt a more civil tone and stop your insulting behavior it's fine w me as long as you practice what you preach .. as far as responding, I will respond to what I like as is my right . You want to block me, your call.

 

Now I will say this without trying to hurt your feelings as I have never even saw your name here before ...

This thread is not about pound for pound greatness but tougher heavyweight opponents ....

Now your second point .. Mankind has gotten bigger at a similar rate ? What are you taking about ? Human evolution ? Those jumps tend to happen over millions of years .. not sixty .. if your saying on scale w professional athletes in others sports it's more on the path but with that comes better as well .. as great as the Pittsburg Steelers were in the 1970's they'd likely get blown out by today's Seahawks ..

 

"as great as the Pittsburg Steelers were in the 1970's they'd likely get blown out by today's Seahawks."

I agree. The problem is they would probably get blown out by the 2013 Steelers also, and the 2013 Steelers did not even make the playoffs.

That brings up what definition of athletic greatness is being used.

The 1970's Steelers, or 1960's Packers, or 1950's Browns, dominated the NFL for years and won several championships each. They were strongly the best of their time. Whatever the cause of size in modern athletes, it is there--the biggest Brown was 260lb, the biggest Packer 260lbs, the biggest Steeler 275lbs, all smallish compared to modern NFL players--and it is possible, even probable, that none of these teams could compete in the modern NFL.

But they were the best in the sport for years. If the 2013 Steelers could beat them, so what? That team is competing against 2013 teams, not 1950's to 1970's teams. And in that competition, they were mediocre.

The Seahawks claim to greatness rests not on them being supposedly better in fantasy matchups with teams from the past, but on their very real accomplishments on the field in 2013. If they don't repeat as champions and never establish a dynasty, they will probably fade in historical comparisons with those old teams, regardless of what anything thinks they would do in head to head matchups.

 

Well, we know Buster Douglas is bigger. But in the end we are debating the worth of who beat the better past it former contenders, guys I could just as easily throw the "vastly overrated" title in front of if it wasn't such a mute point.

Again, I don't think either man defines their era. Both were simply "soft touch" contenders that backfired to different degrees, one just made the Champion look ugly, the other upset the Champion.

Well, Tokyo Douglas did demonstrate the ability to beat a great who wasn't on his game, Kockell didn't though his brave performance against Marciano would give lots of great fighters a hard night. So I put Douglas on the Layne tier, I think that's fair.

 

That is funny I have heard that stupid athletes are getting larger argument due to evolution. Like you said it takes millions of years for a human to evolve. It just so happens huge athletic athletes were not sought out. I think mankind's knowledge of nutrition, understanding the human body with science and what not as well as America's fascination with the larger than life athlete is confused with evolution. Our knowledge has increased we have not evolved genetically in 60 yrs LOL.